We have assumed that this answer is limited only to considering the contractual issues regarding frustration and does not consider any aspect of the non-molestation or third party safe-guarding issues. In summary, a contract is frustrated when an unforeseen event occurs after the formation of the contract that was the fault of neither party and which has the effect of making performance of the contract impossible, or the obligations under the contract are transformed into something radically different. At such point, parties are discharged from their contractual

Overriding interests are interests to which a registered title is subject, even though they do not appear on the register. They are binding both on the registered proprietor and on a person who acquires an interest in the property. However, in relation to a disposition, the occupier’s interest is not overriding if he was questioned prior to the disposition taking place and failed to disclose his interest when he should reasonably have done so. To document such a discussion, all adult occupiers should sign the sale contract or a separate acknowledgment form which will include a clause stating that they have no interest in the property which may be overriding. Responsibility therefore, falls on the seller to disclose any overriding interests. This duty of disclosure applies equally to registered and unregistered land. In the case of registered land, the duty is usually satisfied by supplying the buyer with copies of the register

It is important to consider the rights of the tenant, the common law and statutory assumption of capacity and the formal tests for mental capacity which vary depending on the context of the action in question. In particular, section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) provides that 'A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity'. For more information on mental capacity, see Practice Note: Mental capacity—an introduction. For information on when a person may

What is an assignment? An assignment is an immediate transfer of an existing proprietary right, vested or contingent from one party to another. In essence, one party’s rights under the contract are assigned to someone else: for example, in a contract between (A) and (B), (B) assigns their rights under the contract to (C). The assignment of a contractual right does not create privity of contract between the assignee (C) and the promisor (A). This means that where (A) contracts with (B), no contractual rights or liabilities can attach to (C). Relevant terminology • legal chose in action: a right that can be enforced by an action at law, and is also recognised in equity, for example, a debt due under contract • equitable chose in action: a right that was enforceable only by a suit in equity prior to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 (Ireland) (SCJA(I) 1877 (IRL)). A right connected with some form of property, such as

Contractual provisions The first thing to consider in this scenario is whether or not the contract addresses this situation. If there are any express provisions within the agreement that deal with the situation where a party to the agreement changes

Where an employee is ‘engaged under an umbrella contract’ (ie they perform their duties on an assignment basis, but the contract of employment subsists during the gaps between those assignments) but has not conducted any work for them (ie not any actual engagement), this should not constitute work for the purposes of the Immigration Rules. See the explanation below. For ‘umbrella contracts’, see Practice Note: Employee status/Mutuality of obligation. The Practice Note: Conditions of permission to enter or stay in the UK in the section ‘The scope of conditions of permission/Work or occupation restrictions’ states as follows: ‘The work or occupation restrictions can range from a prohibition on doing any kind of paid or unpaid work to more specific restrictions. Examples include permitting work only in certain

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed the appeal of Contract Natural Gas (Marketing) Ltd (Marketing) under Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 14.8 against the liquidators' rejection of its proof of debt for unpaid commission, save for a limited agreed amount. It held that an agreement between Contract Natural Gas Ltd (CNG) and Marketing dated 9 September 2004 appointing Marketing as sales agent to market, retain and obtain supply customers in exchange for commission (the 2004 Agreement) permitted commission to be calculated by reference to wider business costs and did not unlawfully derogate from the Commercial Agents Regulations 1993 (1993 Regulations), SI 1993/3053. Marketing failed to prove customary or reasonable remuneration under regulation 6 and alleged oral variations could not bind the liquidators in discharging their statutory duties. The decision emphasises that creditors bear the burden of proving debts and should assess contractual terms, no oral modification clauses and appeal costs before challenging an office-holder's adjudication. Produced in partnership with Anamitra Mukhopadhyay of Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

Construction analysis: By a majority decision, the Scottish Inner House overturned the Outer House’s decision and held that the contractor was liable for the collapse of a tunnel under an NEC2 contract because a defect existed in the works at the time of takeover, namely the contractor’s failure to comply with the Works Information. The potential exclusion of liability for errors in design (Option M) could not rescue the contractor as the defect arose from implementation of the design—not the design itself. The Inner House also considered that the existence of a joint insurance policy did not prevent the employer bringing proceedings because it had claimed for a breach of the contractor’s obligation to rectify defects, which was not covered by insurance.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In the County Court, the claimant (Habib) had succeeded in their claim for damages for breach of an agreement that they would be entitled to an equal shareholding with the defendant (Aziz) in a company set up to provide education services. In this unsuccessful appeal by Aziz, the High Court considered arguments on limitation and specifically addressed issues related to the timing of the breach and therefore when the cause of action could be said to have accrued in this case. Written by Charles Joseph, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

Acceptance Firstly, let’s tackle the question of what constitutes acceptance for the purposes of a contract. See Practice Notes on Standard terms and conditions—incorporation—Battle of the forms and Standard terms and conditions—incorporation—Course of dealing, which explain that certainly an offer from one party can be accepted by the conduct of another. To determine whether the act of accepting a bank transfer/direct debit constitutes 'acceptance of an offer' in the scenario in question, you would need to take a step back and identify what previous action constitutes the offer that is being accepted, and indeed whether the other essential elements of a contract are in play for a valid contract to come into formation (see Practice Note: Forming enforceable contracts—authority). However, this question goes beyond considering (in isolation) whether the act of accepting a bank transfer/direct debit constitutes 'acceptance of an offer' at the outset of a (potential) contractual relationship. In the example scenario, the fact of termination

An employee who lives in premises owned by their employer in order to perform their duties as an employee and who has exclusive possession of those premises occupies either as a tenant under a service tenancy or as a licensee under a service occupancy (or tied accommodation as it is also known). The distinction is important because, under a service occupancy, the right to terminate arises when the employment ends whereas a service tenancy will be regulated by the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). Service

It is not possible to contract out of the effects of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246. See Practice Note: TUPE—contracting out and settling claims. However, parties to a commercial agreement affected by TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246 will usually manage those effects by way of appropriate indemnities that apportion specific liabilities between the parties. An